Author
Topic: Finance or Welfare (Read 1573 times)

Sorry Hope I'm not sure I understand your first question. I certainly don't have any real issue with appointment rather than elected members - but it would rather depend on the criteria for appointment. A level of transparency and rigorous application of acceptable standards would be required, that is currently missing in my view.

If the views of some here are to be taken on face value, it seems that any appointed body lacks the validity and power of an elected one. I believe that most of the non-politicos appointed to the current body are still appointed on a prty political basis, even if their appointments are ostensibly for their knowledge of specific issues.

Logged

Are your, or your friends'/relatives', garages, lofts or sheds full of unused DIY gear, sewing/knitting machines or fabric and haberdashery stuff?

Now what we need is a massive letter and email campaign to get Osbourne and Cameron to understand that if they are going to introduce these cuts they have got to occur concurrently with the new measures that are designed to mitigate their impacts - not 3 or 4 years ahead of them.

I wonder if letters to Conservative MPs in marginal seats poining out their vulnerability might have more effect?

Of the MPs I know well, none do less than 60 hrs weeks, often many more.

That proves nothing, if what they do is of no real worth.

Of course using such a vague term here as 'real worth' makes sensible approaches to this quite difficult. Could you expand?

If they twiddled their thumbs or picked their noses for 60hrs a week that wouldn't be worth anything, would it? Looking at their navels of their ideologies and being fastidious about some idiosyncratic item, therein, may seem worthwhile to them but for the nuts and bolts of most peoples lives it is almost pointless and self indulgence. You see a lot of this kind of stuff in the EU with straight bananas and what not.

A little disappointing that the Labour peers abstained of the 'fatal' motion.

I think it was Earl Howe who pointed out that all 3 'party' amendments were effectively 'fatal' motions, as they would all cause the April 2016 introduction date to be delayed.

Now what we need is a massive letter and email campaign to get Osbourne and Cameron to understand that if they are going to introduce these cuts they have got to occur concurrently with the new measures that are designed to mitigate their impacts - not 3 or 4 years ahead of them.

Except I suspect that they might be wrong here - the first motion was to effectively throw these out. The second two were for a report and for the transition arrangements to be in place earlier - given that it is not clear that the transition arrangements will work for many people that is not covering it. There is already a suggestion that Osborne may re-introduce the plan with a few minor tweaks in the Autumn statement - if the first motion had been passed, I would suggest that would have been impossible.

Of the MPs I know well, none do less than 60 hrs weeks, often many more.

That proves nothing, if what they do is of no real worth.

Of course using such a vague term here as 'real worth' makes sensible approaches to this quite difficult. Could you expand?

If they twiddled their thumbs or picked their noses for 60hrs a week that wouldn't be worth anything, would it? Looking at their navels of their ideologies and being fastidious about some idiosyncratic item, therein, may seem worthwhile to them but for the nuts and bolts of most peoples lives it is almost pointless and self indulgence. You see a lot of this kind of stuff in the EU with straight bananas and what not.

And you think that is what the people you don't know are doing? Picking their noses?

There is already a suggestion that Osborne may re-introduce the plan with a few minor tweaks in the Autumn statement - if the first motion had been passed, I would suggest that would have been impossible.

Sorry Hope I'm not sure I understand your first question. I certainly don't have any real issue with appointment rather than elected members - but it would rather depend on the criteria for appointment. A level of transparency and rigorous application of acceptable standards would be required, that is currently missing in my view.

If the views of some here are to be taken on face value, it seems that any appointed body lacks the validity and power of an elected one. I believe that most of the non-politicos appointed to the current body are still appointed on a prty political basis, even if their appointments are ostensibly for their knowledge of specific issues.

I think, Trentvoyager, that recent suggestions that Cameron might consider making 120 new appointments to the HoL in order to "restore" an appropriate balance will be more damaging than he can imagine. It will be seen as buying votes and a partial transition towards a one party state.

A Second Chamber, elected on a PR principle, for, say, seven year terms with specific constitutional roles would help drag our parliamentary system away from its pre-Victorian mind set.

There is already a suggestion that Osborne may re-introduce the plan with a few minor tweaks in the Autumn statement - if the first motion had been passed, I would suggest that would have been impossible.

But won't that one be sent back to the commons?

What one? The first motion? Or the tweaks in the Autumn Statement? If it's teh tweaks, then it really depends on whether there is a real chance of a rebellion.

I think we were all meant to be impressed by certain people's chutzpah of sneaking something in with some menaces.

As Brits we are supposed to love those who are a little bit wheeea little bit whaaaaaaay.

Finding out there are limitations to what one can do because of an overstretch of cleverness is always hard.

Everything said and done now is to protect egos and blind revenge.

If anything I think their arses have been saved and at the end of the day if individual personal ambitions are thwarted but the party survives....that's what counts.

It always seem to be the case that when the Tories get a freehand they over stretch themselves and go over the top in trying to bring in their deepest policies - good ideas at times that are badly implemented. I think this fiasco and ridiculous situation could unravel them as they try to seal up the hole in their 'boat' by banging out even bigger holes as they fight amongst themselves. This is laughable because what Cameron said in his kitchen that he wouldn't stand for a third term will mean the potential leaders are going to use this to stab each other in the back.

No - I don't know what on earth gave you that idea. Needs reforming is all. Which I accept is easier said than done.

My question would be - would an elected second chamber - which would probably be party political in make up - have given the Government a bloody nose on this matter in the same way as the existing HoL did last night?

I don't think such a policy would have been proposed or survived in the Commons because I would guess the HoL elections would be at mid-term of the HoC term and so a threat to Tory peers would have scared this off....?

Of the MPs I know well, none do less than 60 hrs weeks, often many more.

That proves nothing, if what they do is of no real worth.

Of course using such a vague term here as 'real worth' makes sensible approaches to this quite difficult. Could you expand?

If they twiddled their thumbs or picked their noses for 60hrs a week that wouldn't be worth anything, would it? Looking at their navels of their ideologies and being fastidious about some idiosyncratic item, therein, may seem worthwhile to them but for the nuts and bolts of most peoples lives it is almost pointless and self indulgence. You see a lot of this kind of stuff in the EU with straight bananas and what not.

And you think that is what the people you don't know are doing? Picking their noses?

You know I didn't mean that literately and you ignored my second bit about indulging in ideological idiosyncrasies. Do you really think they are doing 60hrs a week of down to earth usefulness?

It will depend what you mean by usefulness. Some of it is a bit rubber chicken, going to open festivals, etc in the constituency but that keeps them in touch with their constituents, lots will be correspondence, lots will be either sitting on it preparing for committees or special interests, they take up. One person I know spends time campaigning against the death penalty around the world, dependent on one's views that might be useful or not. I don't think there is an easy description of useful and suspect that it all depends on one's perception of that. But it is not an easy job if done right. Yes, there are ideological aspects, such as party events but given the system, that is part of the job too, and I don't see a way of avoiding it. You also can't plan to have free time if you are doing anything in your constituency such as shopping, as people will recognise you and bring you their issues.

It will depend what you mean by usefulness. Some of it is a bit rubber chicken, going to open festivals, etc in the constituency but that keeps them in touch with their constituents, lots will be correspondence, lots will be either sitting on it preparing for committees or special interests, they take up. One person I know spends time campaigning against the death penalty around the world, dependent on one's views that might be useful or not. I don't think there is an easy description of useful and suspect that it all depends on one's perception of that. But it is not an easy job if done right. Yes, there are ideological aspects, such as party events but given the system, that is part of the job too, and I don't see a way of avoiding it. You also can't plan to have free time if you are doing anything in your constituency such as shopping, as people will recognise you and bring you their issues.

Point taken. There are a few who take it all as some kind of 'school trip' and don't participate as they should.